Modernised legal remedies in the BAZG-VG

The BAZG-VG extends the appeal procedure to all levies collected by the FOCBS. The existing, sometimes differing regulations in the special laws are completely abolished. This streamlining results in reduced administrative workloads and error susceptibility for companies due to uniform deadlines and processes.

The BAZG-VG regulates the appeal procedure independently and replaces the previous correction procedure under Article 34 of the Customs Act. As far as the law does not make any specific stipulations, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVG) apply mutatis mutandis. This creates legal certainty and transparency in the process. Correction possibilities for companies are simplified and expanded.

As a rule, the appeal procedure is conducted electronically via the FOCBS information system, and no qualified electronic signature is required. In certain cases – such as in tourist traffic or if the person involved is not registered in the system – the paper route remains possible. Companies and private individuals can also voluntarily switch from paper to electronic procedures, provided they register and authenticate themselves. The objective is to ensure a seamless process free from media discontinuity while reducing formalities.

A novelty in the BAZG-VG is that the authority can process appeals automatically if the facts are clear and the law leaves no room for discretion. A risk analysis checks whether automated completion is possible. Thus, companies can enjoy faster decisions and less administrative effort – especially for simple corrections such as quantity or value adjustments or the subsequent submission of certificates of origin. More complex or contentious cases will continue to be examined by a natural person at the FOCBS.

An appeal is only possible against tax assessment decisions – and for all affected types of levies. Other decisions, such as permits, must be challenged directly with an administration internal objection (deadline: 60 days). The appeal period is now one year from the notification of the tax assessment decision – a significant improvement over the previous 30 or 60 days and equivalent to the FOCBS’s period for subsequent claims in customs law. This gives companies equal standing and more time to submit documents or correct errors.

The appeal procedure is free of charge – no fees are levied and no party compensation is granted. Compared to the previous correction or objection procedure, the appeal offers more flexibility and a greater scope for correction – for example, for certificates of origin issued retrospectively, which no longer require a provisional customs declaration upon import.

An administration internal objection can be lodged against the appeal decision of the FOCBS within 60 days – but only if an appeal has previously been made. This procedure is also generally electronic, with the same exceptions as above. The objection is assessed by a different body within the FOCBS than the original appeal to ensure objectivity.

The appeal replaces the previous correction procedure under Article 34 of the Customs Act and will in future also serve to correct cases that were previously handled via provisional assessment. This offers greater flexibility for subsequent corrections and reduces formal hurdles

The one-year appeal period provides companies with the necessary flexibility to assert even complex matters or documents submitted later (e.g., certificates of origin).

The harmonisation of the procedure across all types of levies reduces administrative effort and susceptibility to errors. Companies no longer need to deal with different deadlines and procedures depending on the type of levy, but instead benefit from clear, transparent, and uniform rules.

Electronic processing becomes the rule, speeding up processes and avoiding media discontinuity. Simultaneously, the system remains flexible for special cases and still allows paper-based procedures.

The appeal procedure is free – a clear advantage over many other administrative procedures.

In clear and uncomplicated cases, the FOCBS can process appeals automatically. For companies, this means: quick decisions and less administrative burden.  

Example (from the explanatory report on the BAZG-VG): An importer accidentally declares 10 tonnes instead of 1 tonne. The FOCBS risk analysis recognises that this importer usually imports 1 tonne and can automatically approve the appeal.

The FOCBS does promise a significantly expanded scope for correcting errors in goods declarations. Yet, even in the future, the information in the declaration remains binding and the burden of proof for subsequent changes lies with the person seeking to derive rights from it. Especially afterwards – when the goods are no longer physically available – proof can be difficult. For instance, in a subsequent goods analysis, it must be proven that the analysed goods are indeed the originally declared consignment.

The duty of care and the principle of self-declaration are cornerstones of today’s customs declaration. Thus, a breach of the duty of care excludes a correction under Article 34 of the Customs Act, even if the new facts are clear and proven (see Federal Administrative Court decision A-5586/2023 of 18 December 2024). Until now, companies could maintain their duty of care through provisional customs declarations and mark incomplete information accordingly. This option will no longer exist in the future. Companies are forced to declare all information as final and binding – even if further correction is foreseeable.

The resulting risks are highlighted in the following example: 
A product is imported with an unknown VOC content, which is only analysed after importation. The declarant prudently declares the maximum VOC content of 100%. This leads to several potential issues:

• Delays: The customs office might – rightly – question the high VOC content and ask follow-up questions, as it must assume the information is final.

• Criminal consequences: The declarant has intentionally submitted a false goods declaration. Even if there is no tax evasion, this could constitute an administrative offence under Article 207 BAZG-VG, punishable by a fine of up to 5’000 francs.

• Worse company rating: A correction of the goods declaration means an incorrect initial declaration for the system – this can negatively impact the company rating. 

• Less efficient controls: Guideline 67 stipulates that the customs office should take a sample in the case of provisional VOC values. It remains unclear how the FOCBS will recognise such cases with deviating risk profiles and react accordingly in the future.

The FOCBS has high ambitions with its “intelligent risk analysis” and the automated processing of appeals is a significant advance. However, it remains to be seen how many cases are actually suitable for an IT-supported decision. While simple and low-risk changes – such as address or payment details – can be easily automated, more far-reaching facts are often complex in practice and require individual examination. Especially, the example mentioned in the explanatory report, which demands sophisticated pattern recognition, still seems quite futuristic.